Why did He let them walk away?

[mercygate]

Stone, your posts on “having” eternal life and transubstantiation are so long that to save space I won’t quote them here.

I see no contradiction between Christ’s saying that by believing in him we “have” – or more accurately, “begin” – eternal life (now) and a belief that it is possible to turn away from it. Others in other threads (and you, yourself, as one knowledgeable of Scripture) can quote strings of citations referring to drawing back, turning aside from salvation. Many of us know people who have been “saved” who have died in denial of Christ.

Even as a Protestant, I wondered why eternal security seems so important to people. Why do I need to know for certain, beyond any doubt, that I will be among the blessed at the last? Where then would be the virtue and joy of hope (Rom 5:2, 8:24, 12:12, 15:16; I Cor 15:19 and so on)? To place oneself by faith in the mystery of eternal life is but the first step of our walk with Christ. Catholics do not find this frightening, “insecure” or terrible but an occasion of joyful hope.

Am I correct in understanding that your view is that we receive the work of redemption in a single event: answer the altar call, accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and that’s it? Never will you sin again? (Or if you do, it doesn’t matter because nothing you can do can remove your salvation?)

Catholics distinguish between Christ’s redemptive act and the completion of our salvation. Catholics understand, with Paul in the epistle to the Philippians (2:12), that although the Lord has achieved our redemption, the follow-up on our part is to live in relationship with Christ, to receive the work of redemption with every breath we draw, “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” (which is not “works righteousness”!) That is the consequence of free will (of course, you may not believe in free will if you are of a strong Calvinist bent). Catholics understand that the Lord will never take away our free will because without it we cannot love.

 

[mercygate]

“Mtr01” equivocated by stating in his reply: "So yes, I believe that you find "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you" is a hard saying, and would have left our Lord with the other faithless disciples." So what is he actually saying here? That unless I partake in the Catholic Mass (encompassed is belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation) I have no faith and Chritst’s life is not in me? That I am spiritually dead and that my only hope for life and salvation is converting to Catholicism (preferably under the direction of the Roman See) and accept, by faith, the doctrine of transubstantiation, partaking in Mass; and then, and only then will I have hope for “eternal life” (6:40, 47, 51, 54, 56, 58)?

It might help you at this point to step back a couple of centuries and think of the Eucharist as “Real Presence” rather than getting tangled up in the definition of Transubstantiation. As a Protestant, I was greatly helped by recognizing that God is Spirit and God is real. Therefore, for Christ to be “really present” in the Sacrament was not a contradiction in terms at all. And it rather pulled the whole of John 6 together for me.

It actually can be said that once someone has come to recognize the Catholic Church as the visible Church Christ founded, has understood her to be his Body and Bride, has seen that the Charism of Christ’s teaching authority has been God-breathed into the Church by Christ himself on the very day of his Resurrection, that despite the sin that is within her (though not of her) she has been the fountainhead of everything one has received of Christian truth, through Scripture and faith – once one has recognized *that, *then to deny the Church, is to reject the very Body and Blood of Christ and to deny Jesus himself.

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

Yes, but you failed to respond to my whole reply, and I think you’re reading into Scripture something that is not there.

No, the problem as always with John 6 is a reader’s inability to read what is there.

John points out that even the apostles did not understand what Christ meant about eating and drinking his body. They could not have understood since He had not died and risen yet. It is only after Christ’s death and resurrection that John was able to reflect on what Christ’s words during the Bread of Life discourse and see the true meaning of those words. The people left because they could not understand … the apostles stayed even though they did not understand … that is very significant. That is faith … believing but not yet fully understanding but secure in the knowledge that the understanding will come. I believe that the same thing that happened to Jesus’s followers happens today. Many do not believe what He is saying. The people 2,000 years ago had a reason to possibly not understand but today there is no such excuse.

The difficulty I see in the non-literal interpretations of John 6 is that the words are quotes from Christ himself. John does not paraphrase Christ’s words. John quotes Christ himself throughout the whole discourse.

The words written by John in Chapter 6 are plain and simple right before your eyes. In the end I can say Jesus I took Your word that You would do what you said You would do … Give me your flesh and blood as food to eat.

I still would like to see what about a literal interpretation of John 6 is so confounding to people. Why cannot a literal interpretation be true? Is it because Jesus cannot accomplish this miracle, is it because it does not make sense, is it because it contradicts some other scriptural doctrine. It cannot be because Christ did not say it … that is evidenced throughout John 6. What is it ??

I think that if you acknowledge the truth about the Eucharist then one realizes the only place where this is available is the Catholic Mass … by default then the Catholic Church and for many this cannot be. Faith in Jesus means a faith in all He said … even though it is hard to understand.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

How is this??? Does Jesus not unequivocally state in verse fifty-four, *“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life; and I WILL raise Him up on the last day?” *

And since you interpret “eating” and “drinking” as literal, being accomplished in your Eucharistic Mass, how is it that those who literally eat His body and drink His blood don’t believe they have eternal life - now?
What kind of assurance do you want? Ok…If I am eating and drinking Christ’s body and blood, and I drop dead right there at the moment I am eating and drinking (in a worthy state—mind you lest I consume damnation per Paul-1 Cor.) –YES—at that moment I HAVE eternal life–HALLELUJAH! Lord, let me hand the cup of Your Blood safely back to the Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and drop dead at his feet!. I am SAVED!!!

Mercygate and ncgolf seem to have addressed the rest of your question…so…waiting for you…

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

Do me a favor and lay off trying to analyze me …you have no clue.I can only respond to the content of your posts.

I’m not the one who cries and whines when someone uses a larger than basic font and such silliness.

I never cried, I never whined, I simply stated I don’t respond to large fonts. I left the choice up to you. And I must say I found you quite gracious toward me when you did cut down their size. I think the majority of people would have just walked away and never look back.

Call me anything…but n-C. You couch your presentation as if we are too stupid to understand what we believe and that you “know something”. What do you know?

If I thought you were all too stupid to understand what you believe I wouldn’t be here. So far eveyone I’ve corresponded with have demonstrated they do know what they believe and are able to transfer their belief into writing. This is not the case, however, with many Catholics I’ve recently met or have known for years. Since I’ve been “born again” I’ve never been one

who thinks the subjects of religion and politics should be avoided. So what I thoroughly enjoy about guys like Fellicity, Mercygate and “mtr01” is that they present their defense without having to get overy defensive. I consider this depth of character.

No man, I’m the one walkin’ away.But then you’ll miss out.

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

The words written by John in Chapter 6 are plain and simple right before your eyes. In the end I can say Jesus I took Your word that You would do what you said You would do … Give me your flesh and blood as food to eat.

I still would like to see what about a literal interpretation of John 6 is so confounding to people. Why cannot a literal interpretation be true? Is it because Jesus cannot accomplish this miracle

Amen to you ncgolf. It is so simply and plainly stated, yet many cannot see through the veil. The fact that so many people put forth so much time and energy to deny the Real Presence, is an absolute travesty.

God bless you!

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

So what I thoroughly enjoy about guys like Fellicity, Mercygate and “mtr01” is that they present their defense without having to get overy defensive…

HEY!!! Don’t you DARE accuse me of that!!! I’m just as defensive as the next guy…how dare you…grumble, grumble grumble, snarl, grumble…

 

[catholicboys3]

I have a relative who left the church, and when I asked him about the verse. He said that if they would have stayed they would have understood that Jesus did not mean to eat his flesh, because the next thing he said was that the flesh is of no avail, the spirit gives life. this gives them cause to belive that Jesus was not speaking litterally.

 

[Mickey]

catholicboys3:

I have a relative who left the church, and when I asked him about the verse. He said that if they would have stayed they would have understood that Jesus did not mean to eat his flesh, because the next thing he said was that the flesh is of no avail, the spirit gives life. this gives them cause to belive that Jesus was not speaking litterally.

Jesus was not speaking of His flesh. He was referring to our sinful useless earthly tent. He would not say to eat His flesh and then turn around and say, my flesh is of no avail.

 

[st_felicity]

catholicboys3:

I have a relative who left the church, and when I asked him about the verse. He said that if they would have stayed they would have understood that Jesus did not mean to eat his flesh, because the next thing he said was that the flesh is of no avail, the spirit gives life. this gives them cause to belive that Jesus was not speaking litterally.

20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. It doesn’t say they left Him until after He said that. He does NOT say “MY” flesh–He says “the” flesh. In otherwords–this earthly world is passing away and TRUE life is in His words–My flesh is True food. He points out it is no more (and no less!) miraculous than if He levitatated back to Heaven–which He did shortly thereafter… That statement is the one many Protestants hang their hat on because they think it lets them off the hook from believing Christ’s unequivocal statement of fact. But throughout the Bible “the flesh” (as distinct from “my flesh”) has always referred to the trappings of this world and it is no different in John 6.

 

[Jim_B]

catholicboys3:

I have a relative who left the church, and when I asked him about the verse. He said that if they would have stayed they would have understood that Jesus did not mean to eat his flesh, because the next thing he said was that the flesh is of no avail, the spirit gives life. this gives them cause to belive that Jesus was not speaking litterally.

Did your relative read on?

Because he implies that those who stayed were given some explanation of it being a metaphor, not to be taken literally.
But in fact, Christ offered no further ‘interpretation’ of His words.
He said them literally, they were interpreted literally.
At other times in the Gospel where Jesus was speaking
metaphorically he did take the time to explain these distinctions
to the apostles afterward. And at times where the metaphors were
so obvious that they needed no further explaining, none was
necessary (I am the Vine, etc…).
It’s entirely possible your relative left for other reasons.

God Bless,
Jim B

 

[Stone]

Mercygate:

I see no contradiction between Christ’s saying that by believing in him we “have” – or more accurately, “begin” – eternal life (now) and a belief that it is possible to turn away from it.

More accurately? But Jesus never used the word “begin” in connection with eternal life. More accurately He said “HAS” eternal life. You might find it interesting to see how often that phrase is used in John’s Gospel account in conjunction with belief.

Many of us know people who have been “saved” who have died in denial of Christ.

Truthfully? I know of no one. I know of people who had at one time professed Christ , but I don’t know if they were actually saved.

Mickey, eternal means eternal. It’s everlasting life. If you can lose it it’s not eternal (everlasting), is it?

Am I correct in understanding that your view is that we receive the work of redemption in a single event: answer the altar call, accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and that’s it? Never will you sin again? (Or if you do, it doesn’t matter because nothing you can do can remove your salvation?)

I believe in eternal secuity because I believe Christ when He says those who believe in Him HAVE eternal life. Jesus doesn’t say He gives the believer eternal life IF he never sins again. Such is the “gospel” of man’s religion, but not the “good news” found in God’s written Word: "…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal (everlasting) life." Read Jn. 5:24 which is in preparation for John six.

It might help you at this point to step back a couple of centuries and think of the Eucharist as “Real Presence” rather than getting tangled up in the definition of Transubstantiation. As a Protestant, I was greatly helped by recognizing that God is Spirit and God is real. Therefore, for Christ to be “really present” in the Sacrament was not a contradiction in terms at all. And it rather pulled the whole of John 6 together for me.

The problem is that John never connects the two events. You, the reader, must read INTO John six the doctrine of the Eucharist.

It actually can be said that once someone has come to recognize the Catholic Church as the visible Church Christ founded, has understood her to be his Body and Bride, has seen that the Charism of Christ’s teaching authority has been God-breathed into the Church by Christ himself on the very day of his Resurrection, that despite the sin that is within her (though not of her) she has been the fountainhead of everything one has received of Christian truth, through Scripture and faith – once one has recognized that, then to deny the Church, is to reject the very Body and Blood of Christ and to deny Jesus himself.

By “Catholic Church” I assume you mean the Latin (Western) Church, since it claims Apostolic succession beginning with Peter, and exclusive Catholicity. You seem to place the Latin Church in juxtaposition with Christ Himself. To believe in it is to receive salvation. To deny it after believing in it (your definition above) is to lose that salvation. Can you show me in Scripture where anyone is ever instructed to put his faith in the church for salvation (specifically the Latin church)? Was the church crucified for my sins?

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

HEY!!! Don’t you DARE accuse me of that!!! I’m just as defensive as the next guy…how dare you…grumble, grumble grumble, snarl, grumble…

If the shoe fits!

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them…But you do not want to come to me to have life. from the chapter just before John 6; verse 39-40

Yes, and if you follow through:

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words” (Jn. 5:46-47)?

"They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you *believe *in Him whom He has sent” (Jn. 6:28-29).

And then they challenged Him to give them a sign so that they would have a reason to believe in Him. Something convincing, not just one meal like they had the day before, but like Moses who gave them manna in the wilderness for 40 years. He then compares the superiority of Himself which God has given them to the manna He gave their ancestors in the wilderness:

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe” (Jn. 5:35-36).

The constant underlying theme in John’s Gospel account is “believing” in Him. Jesus explains that believing (in Him) is the only conduit for life (eternal). He was already there standing in their midst, so “come to Me” is obviously stated an equivalent to “believing in” Him.

He says: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40; compare with 5:29).

Staying with the “bread” analogy, He metaphorically equates eating with believing:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die (Jn. 6:48-50).

And the means by which this is accomplished, He states, is the cross:

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (Jn. 6:51).

In other words, His LIFE could only be given to the world through the crucifixion, His substitutionary, sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29). He says the “bread” He gives FOR the life of the world is His flesh, i.e., His body to be offered TO GOD as a sin-offering FOR the sins of the world. But the LIFE He transfers TO the the world (believers) is His resurrected LIFE, which is ETERNAL.

Continued next post…

 

[Stone]

Continued from previous post:

The message of salvation and eternal life through faith in Him did not go out into the world until AFTER His crucifixion and His bodily resurrection from the dead. There’s no life in His crucified body; our sins were imputed to it (2 Cor. 5:21); The crucifixion was the means by which He would be empowered to transfer His NEW life (resurrected, eternal) to believers now cleansed of all sins because of His death on the cross. As Paul states in Rom. six: "For the death that He died He died “to” (“unto”) *sin *(our sins laid on Him) once for all, but the life that He (now) lives (resurrected) *He lives to God." *The believer is no longer in Adam but in Christ resurrected, the “Last Adam”; and so Paul concludes: “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God IN Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:10-11).

Speaking of the believer Paul concludes:

"But NOW having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life (not a future outcome for the believer, but a present benefit being IN Christ, resurrected, no longer in Adam). “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:22-23).

Now to remain consistent, I believe one must understand verses 54-59 in the same metaphoric language Jesus had been using concerning Himself as the “bread of life” in the previous verses. “Eating” and “drinking” being analagous to believing in Him. See the comparison:

Verse 54: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life…”
Verse 47: “He who believes in Me has eternal life.”

Verse 54: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise Him up on the last day”
Verse 40: “and *believes *in Him, may have eternal life, and I Myself will raise Him up on the last day.”

“Eating” and “drinking” is personally appropriating, through faith in Him, His death and resurrection. Obviously what He’d been saying about Himself needed to be spiritually appraised. But those carnal minded, unbelieving “disciples” (He knew their hearts) heard nothing of the spiritual truths He was communicating about Himself. They took His words literally, were repulsed, grumbled and withdrew. They didn’t stick around for verse 63.

This chapter is the ONLY place in John’s account where Christ’s words “eats My flesh and drinks My blood” are recorded. Therefore they must be understood within the context of this chapter only. John never goes on to record the words of Christ instituting the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in his account. How is it then that you do?

 

[teresas1979]

This is just a brief hijack of a very interesting thread to say hello, good luck and congratulations to all the Catholics here. As a cradle Catholic, belief in the real presence shouldn’t be difficult but unfortunately once you start to doubt Church teaching you can easily doubt it all. The big issue is the authority of the (Catholic) Church and whether she is the one truly instituted by Christ. With this authority, her teachings become more readily acceptable (even if they are difficult), without it the more difficult teachings are so much simpler to reject.

With specific reference to Felicity, Ani, CM and Mtr01 (and many others to a lesser extent) I just want to say thank you for clarifying the position of why Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and how it is not merely a symbol. Your arguments are compelling and well substantiated and when approached with an open mind (rather than the Protestant bias you regularly see) prove almost beyonf doubt that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist.

So hijack over - and please keep up the good work. I pray for more convincing arguments in favour of the Catholic teaching on the more difficult issues from such eloquent debaters…

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

More accurately? But Jesus never used the word “begin” in connection with eternal life. More accurately He said “HAS” eternal life.

I knew my phrase was poorly chosen the second I hit the send button. No. “Having” the life which, in Christ alone, is “eternal” does not mean that it cannot be forfeited this side of eternity. The “life” is eternal; not necessarily my acceptance of it.

I know of no one. I know of people who had at one time professed Christ , but I don’t know if they were actually saved.

That’s the whole problem with eternal security, isn’t it? Those people would have told you that they KNEW they were saved, using the same arguments you have just mounted. It’s not security at all.

Jesus doesn’t say He gives the believer eternal life IF he never sins again. Such is the “gospel” of man’s religion, but not the “good news” found in God’s written Word: "…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal (everlasting) life." Read Jn. 5:24 which is in preparation for John six.The problem is that John never connects the two events. You, the reader, must read INTO John six the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Actually, the doctrine of the Eucharist is derived from these passages. Why else would Paul say that he who eats and drinks of the Eucharist “without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself?” As for antinomianism: try Mt. 25.

By “Catholic Church” I assume you mean the Latin (Western) Church, since it claims Apostolic succession beginning with Peter, and exclusive Catholicity.

I do not mean the “Latin” Church. I mean the Catholic Church, including the schismatic East – those Churches with Apostolic Succession which have preserved the Apostolic faith. Apostolic Succession does not “begin” with Peter. It begins with Christ, who breathed the Holy Spirit into the eleven; primacy is Peter’s but the essence is shared among all of the Apostles.

You seem to place the Latin Church in juxtaposition with Christ Himself.

Yes. To be the Bride is to be “one flesh” with the Bridegroom. That is partly what we mean when we speak of the Mystical Body of Christ.

To believe in it is to receive salvation.

Jesus Christ is our salvation. We believe that he gave us the Church as a primary means of appropriating his mercy and grace as she responds to Christ’s command that she “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt. 28:19-20)

To deny it after believing in it (your definition above) is to lose that salvation.

We would not presume to judge whether someone has lost his salvation by denying the Church; but to deny that Jesus gave us the Church and that she is a means of grace would be perverse.

Can you show me in Scripture where anyone is ever instructed to put his faith in the church for salvation (specifically the Latin church)? Was the church crucified for my sins?

The Church IS entrusted with preaching salvation and with the ministry of reconciliation. Paul is pretty clear that the Church is where we are in Christ – but that’s another whole discussion. When we have identified the Church – or at least that core of the Church which goes back in history and in grace to the Lord himself – we can “put our faith in the church for salvation” since her ministry is Christ’s ministry; “we are ambassadors for Christ,” (2Cor 5:20) – an ambassador is entrusted with the powers of the King. Christ is the Savior; the Church is his servant-ambassador. Was she crucified for your sins? She was born of the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus as he hung on the cross. In her faithfulness, she is crucified daily, as are we all.

The term “Latin Church” is too narrow. “Catholic,” even with a capital “C,” encompasses much more than the Latin Church. As I said before, to recognize that the Church is the gift of Christ himself and, as Paul tells us, is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” demands from the honest man assent. I was not able to give that assent for many years. I became an “honest man” when I began to pray: “Lord, if this is your Church, then I need to be IN it and not OUT of it. Do whatever you have to do to make that happen.”

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

“Eating” and “drinking” is personally appropriating, through faith in Him, His death and resurrection. Obviously what He’d been saying about Himself needed to be spiritually appraised. But those carnal minded, unbelieving “disciples” (He knew their hearts) heard nothing of the spiritual truths He was communicating about Himself. They took His words literally, were repulsed, grumbled and withdrew. They didn’t stick around for verse 63.

Christ is leaving the underpinings of the Eucharist at this moment. Even the disciples that were left were asked by Christ if they too wanted to leave … and they were the chosen by Christ himself. Their response was … To whom shall we go. Christ would have asked them only if the look of doubts were written on their faces, they too must have been scandalized by Christ’s words. I am sure Christ could read their hearts also. The 12 remained with Jesus even not truly understanding fully the words Jesus had just spoken. The passage of time only makes John 6 more powerful, more meaningul. The same grousing and grumbling about Christ’s words still occurs today. Can this man give us His body and blood as food? That question is still asked of all Christ’s believers. Some still walk away unbelieving in His words. What happens when one substitutes other words for Christ’s original words (eat vs believe) is the meaning and power change. It becomes much more palatable and benign and oh so much easier to believe. One can say whew… that is much easier to believe than that eating thing. NO … but one cannot substitute Christ’s words so easily, one must stay with what Christ said … even in its difficulty. Even John did not change Christ’s words and he could have and no one would have been the wiser. It is best left to read what Christ SAID not what we want Him or expect Him to say.

Stone:

This chapter is the ONLY place in John’s account where Christ’s words “eats My flesh and drinks My blood” are recorded. Therefore they must be understood within the context of this chapter only. John never goes on to record the words of Christ instituting the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in his account. How is it then that you do?

You are right in that this is the only place those words are recorded but we still do not and will not know if this is the only place they were spoken. It really does not matter how many times Christ is recorded on any subject. He is the Truth. If it was said once only in all eternity by Christ it does not lessen its truth. What is the point of counting how many times Christ is recorded saying something … are you saying if Christ is recorded less on a subject it is less important or significant.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone–I’m addressing the verses you pointed out to show that your emphasis is not the ONLY way to see these scriptures. PLEASE recognize–CATHOLIC BELIEF DOES NOT DENY ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID–concerning these verses–there is a deeper meaning that is contained within those words. The deeper meaning of John 6 DOES NOT CONTRADICT your beliefs–IT EXPLORES A MORE COMPLETE TRUTH!

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words” (Jn. 5:46-47)?
What words? The words He says later in John 6 are of UTMOST importance!

"They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you *believe *in Him whom He has sent” (Jn. 6:28-29).
Belief is a verb–but it is not a “work”. What is the “work” we must “do”? Physically “eat” the flesh and blood of the Lamb.

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe” (Jn. 5:35-36).

He says: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:40; compare with 5:29).
Where do Protestants “see” or “behold” Jesus? Catholics behold Christ at every Mass–AND we believe–where do Protestants do COMPLETELY as Jesus says? Is the argument going to be that “seeing” is ALSO figurative language? Is everything that doesn’t fit what a Protestant wants to believe become a linguistic conundrum?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die (Jn. 6:48-50).
“Eat” is both literal and figurative here.

And the means by which this is accomplished, He states, is the cross:

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (Jn. 6:51).
TWO literal meanings (cross & Eucharist).

 

[st_felicity]

WHY DO YOU NOT CONTINUE TO THESE VERSES? YOU DO BRIEFLY ADDRESS V.54, BUT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Stone–your focus on “believe” is very accurate–but incompete. We truly are not so very far apart in our belief conscerning this particular Scripture–but it is a biggie! This EXACTLY demonstrates one area where the Protestant churches have the Truth–but not the FULLNESS of Truth that can only be found in the Catholic Church (and despite what you said–Latin Rite does believe Eastern Churches also have the fullness of Truth because they to trace back to thge Apostles–different thread…)

TO BE CLEAR: in verses 52-58, yes–Jesus speaks of believing in Him and giving His life for the world–But he *also *speaks of believing in His Sacrifice and that He INDEED is the Paschal Lamb to be CONSUMED both figuratively (through belief in Him) and LITERALLY (His flesh is TRUE food).

The Jews who were murmering understood Him to be literal–Jesus did not correct them–in fact He EMPHASIZED their literal understanding–and they walked away…John 6 is figurative AND literal–not either/or–but rather BOTH/AND!

 

[st_felicity]

teresas1979:

This is just a brief hijack …

Thank you for your kind words…I had hoped this thread would be enlightening–and I agree it is! What should we tackle next?